Sacks Column: NY Electronic Tagging Device Bill--An Orwellian Measure

I'm afraid they'd just have to put my ass in jail. Let the state pay to feed, clothe and house me. As an added bonus feature, the woman making the false accusations as a ploy in "family" court would get to live without support payments. It works for me.

Remember the guy who's done 12 years on a contempt charge because he hasn't handed over $2.5 million he doesn't have to his wealthy and re-married wife? He's going to have company. Maybe when a few thousand men are doing long stretches for the crime of refusing to wear a dog collar and tags (ever seen 9 to 5?), and a whole bunch of women who made false accusations are on welfare because their meal-ticket is rotting in prison on the state's dime, the message will sink in: as much as it hates us, society needs us, and we refuse to be treated like animals on the say-so of some bitter woman or a judge who doesn't give a rat's ass about due process.

Glenn is precise in his research and resulting commentaries. I keep wondering why he hasn't secured another regular broadcast slot in radio or television, after the demise of his excellent HisSide program.

Any young man, divorced man, or male child in utero needs to understand the full legal tyranny that radical feminism has imposed upon FemAmerica.

There are NO free men any longer.

One 911 call and four words are all it takes ---

"I'm afraid of him."

And the full power of expropriation by the state descends upon a man, who now has to prove his innocence ... without due process.

There is not a presidential candidate running today who would endorse this bill in a heartbeat. (With the possible exception of neo-Liberatarian GOP Ron Paul.)

Feminism has turned democratic legality on its head ---

every man accused of DV is now presumed guilty, with his prospect for innocence being largely a matter of his bank account and what shyster lawyer (in league with N.O.W.) he can afford.

My prediction?

Voluntary celibacy by virile men is going to become the next "lifestyle" phenomenon.

Entirely shunning involvement with women, refusing the obligatory chivalry, having no truck with the dream-killers who harvest men.

At least until there is reliable male birth control that women cannot subvert.

Until then, no marriage, no babies, no way.

Too bad liberated and independent women (i.e. soccer moms) do not post on this site.

If you want to hear them whine .... dial into the Tom Leykis radio show on the web.

So many victimized gold-diggers.... so little defensive awareness among men.

And no apologies from the predatory gender, i.e. "the fairer sex," ever.

There is not a presidential candidate running today who would NOT endorse this bill in a heartbeat.

It's unpopular to be unpopular.....

(Homage -- Allison Moorer's lyrics)

RM -- " ...the message will sink in: as much as it hates us, society needs us,..."

Ummm, no, its pretty much been made clear that men are redundant.

At its core, your argument is that men's "utility" will somehow re-emerge?

In actual fact, no (Western) woman requires a man to support her, to stay alive at the minimum levels of basic needs.

In America's inner city ghettos, most women have learned that Uncle Sam/ The Nanny State is a lot more reliable than MyBabies'Daddies.....

Soccer moms with six-figure incomes and hubbies earning slightly more file 70% of the divorce petitions in the U.S.

This complicates your theory of who needs whom, yes?

When one gender can simply prey upon another, that unlevels the playing field to such an extent that "need" becomes irrelevant.

Any divorced woman can always hire a divorced plumber, mechanic, or sexual appliance ....

using what she harvested from her ex---.

And if she has not yet accomplished having an ex- ????

Just dial 911!

DV / Divorce Inc. on command!

Time to renew your passports, gentlemen.

Hillary has your best interests on her docket.

These type monitoring devices are a monstrosity against humanity anyway, but now that it is likely that large numbers of innocent men will be tagged, we get the best of both paradigms: "guilty until proven innocent" and "invade peoples' privacy".
-ax

If it's unconstitutional, Ron Paul would not support it.

David A. DeLong

The way this country is going they will eventually implant a small explosive tracking device in the base of all males skulls. One phone call from his female controller and poof, Man no more. Sounds hidious doesn't it? But, then again when was the last time our constitution was actually followed by our government?

My comment about the bill - they are trying to make ALL men subject to the same conditions as AWA without the hassele of having to have a trial and find a man guilty of a sex offence.

This is a new idea to make ALL men into defacto sex offenders.

Now, on to your idea RM. You know I have the greatest of respect for you, I think you are an extremely intellegant and learned individual.

But your idea here won't play out well in reality. There is no unity among common men when it comes to competition for women. So once you are in jail rotting with all your worldly possessions siezed by the State and divided up between the vultures (lawyers, court workers, judges, victims groups, STATE mental health professionals etc) and your ex, she'll just move on to preying one multiple men for each of her needs. She just gets better at her game now that she has 100% confidence that the system is on her side and she's recieved professional training on how to be a monsterous life sucking leech from victims groups.

Meanwhile, the world has forgotten you exist.

I get that your argument is well if this happened enough times... it would somehow make a difference.

Well, let me site sex offenders again - there's close to 1 million men in the United States subject to AWA which imposes much worse restrictions then this proposed bill. As you should know - with up to 50% of rape accusations turning out to be false and the fact that you don't actually need to have sexually assaulted anyone to get on the registry - many innocent men are on that list. Of the guilty even, most are extremely low risk offenders who pose no more threat to society then any other average memeber of it.

So you see them making a difference? They get 10 years under AWA for fail to register. In 99% of fail to register cases, that's longer then the sentance they recieved for the original crime. Do you see society standing up and learning a lesson from that? Nope, they think it's peachy.

So you really think society is all of a sudden going to notice men going to jail by the hundreds of thousands on DV protection order violation charges and cry out for justice? Society doesn't even have the first clue. Just like when society hears the term sex offender they picture Child rapist in their mind, when they hear domestic violence they picture angry drunk beating the holy hell out of women and children. They don't picture their son.

Just ask Mark Lundsford - father of Jessica Lundsford - who has been the number one crusader for all the laws against sex offenders because his daughter was killed by a registered sex offender who is severely mentally ill, borderline retarded, had sought help dozens of times and was ignored by the State to the point that the tragedy that befell Jessica happened. Well, Marks son now has to register as a sex offender for having sex with a 14 year old girl. He's a teen himself, the sex was consentual, but the girls parents didn't like him and called the cops. Well, now he is labeled a child molester -EXACT SAME LABEL AS JOHN COUEY - and will be treated accordingly. The irony is almost commical if it wasn't so tragic. Idiot goes 100% in the wrong direction after his daughter is killed by a man in desperate need of help by seeking vengance, and now his son falls prey to the evil he birthed into this world from the anger he felt losing his daughter.

The point it, everyone likes these moronic revenge laws until they fall victim to them.

No one - MRAs partially excluded - is going to stand up and demand a new direction.

Even in Canada, we have proportunately to the population more people on our national registry then the USA because we'va had ours longer, and not one person here is in the media crying for the human rights of those on it.

Letting your self fall victim to the laws like this will accomplish less then nothing to change them. It will take away another good man, and society will go on like nothing happened.

We've already lost enough good men for me to say that one person should allow themselves to get trapped by the system in a form of protest that will fall completely on deaf ears.

...that libertarian conservatism is a bit of lost cause these days. It's too bad - Mr. Paul seems like a decent fellow, and you're right, he'd probably laugh the idea of ear-tagging men (or even the idea of the arbitrary restraining orders behind the ear-tags) out the door.

It seems like you only have two choices if you live in America and have the right to vote: you can vote to create the Republic of Jesustan, or the People's Democratic Republic of Feministan. Which do you prefer? Since nobody else can even get on the ballots, and I'm not religious or a feminist, I'd be making paper airplanes out of mine and flinging them at Hillary or Giuliani's corrupt mugs. Maybe that's why there are so few paper ballots in the US electoral system!

Seriously, it's a bloody shame that actual small government, states-rights conservatives don't have a prayer anymore, and that the Democrats are having their usual victim-off instead of a primary. Both parties have the potential to yield reasonable governments, but neither one's interested anymore - they've both got far too much social meddling and taxpayer pork on their minds to worry about such trivial things as good government.

...both make an excellent point and you are both correct - the idea that society actually gives a damn what happens to men is an error on my part, at least under the present circumstances. Together with the fact that there is no unity among men this means that non-cooperation and active, nonviolent resistance won't work. Yet. If there were some unity among men, it would work just fine, but we're hardwired to be paternal and to cave in to every little thing that women demand because we typically see them as being "weaker" than us, which causes paternalism to kick in. That's why a big part of what I'm trying to do is raise men's consciousness and awareness of our situation.

The first battle of this war is overcoming the part of our nature that feminists prey off so we can fight collectively for justice. Men regularly put parts of our nature (i.e. our self-preservation instinct) aside to enter hazardous workplaces and battlefields just to protect and provide for our families, so we're certainly capable of doing so. Once a balance has be re-established we can safely embrace our paternalism again, but for now it's a lethal poison that's being misused deliberately to destroy us. This is why it's so critical that we teach other men to think of women as "equals". If we seem them as equals, they don't require our protection. If they don't require our protection, men will be free to act in their own interests without the constraints of paternalism. Ironic, don't you think, that the solution to our problems lies in accepting women as "equals"? This is why feminists insist on maintaining the idea that women are victims while paying lip-service to the idea of equality - it keeps paternalism from shutting down and allows their hate campaign to proceed.

A man who takes massive risks to protect his family is putting his nature aside for a cause. I ask nothing less of men when it comes to protecting their fellow men. Paternalism can work to our benefit, too. We just have to make average men understand that women don't need or deserve our protection anymore and that we're the ones facing massive injustice, and it will kick in to our collective advantage.

Still, the fact that I understand that it's a temporarily futile gesture does nothing to change what I would do under such a law. I'd show up as ordered, give the judge silence and a blank stare and let them haul me off to jail, where they'd have to stick a tube down my throat to keep me alive. I refuse to cooperate with unjust laws and an unjust legal system. I may be just a drop of water in an ocean of misandry, but the ocean is made up entirely of drops of water.

I appreciate that your motives are noble in suggesting that we renew our passports Roy, but I won't be leaving. This society is just as much mine as it is women's, and I'll fight to the death for my piece of it. Feminism will eventually go the way of the dodo, just like all hate movements, and I'm here to help usher it along to the grave.

I have put my money where my mouth is with Ron Paul. I have done the research and found that my state allows me to participate in the Republican Primaries so that I can cast my vote to Paul. I have donated to his campaign as well. If we can give this kind of power over people back to the states, it will be much easier to change government to help our cause. The feminists and the religious will be broken up because they will have to spend all their money in state governments (thus decentralizing all of their efforts and power). If you like the guy, please help out wherever you can. Don't let Hillary or Rudy take the election and drive our country even more into the toilet!

...which will come first, a world of cooperation and understanding among men where non-violent active resistance will result in change, or enough men getting caught in traps like AWA and DV bills like this and stripped of their humanity to the point where change comes in a different more violent manner?

Make no mistake about it, the clock is ticking.

At the rate these new laws are getting proposed and passed - I personally thought it would be at least half a decade before the sex offender experiment got expanded to other groups of men like those accused of domestic violence. But it seems that they are expanding the ideas of AWA to encompass non-sexual offenders (and in this case people who've never even had a day in court yet) already. When the backlash of these laws comes, it will not be by a small resistance group, there will be millions if you add AWA registrants and those who will fall prey to this new proposed bill.

You think we (as in all MRAs) can get the message out to all men before that day comes? I certainly hope so as I prefer non-lethal revolutions myself, but it would seem that the misandric laws that are directly punitive in nature are coming fast these days and that does not bode well for anyone. All it takes these days is one State to enact such a law and the other 49 fall right in line with a National bill hot on their heels.

I believe our country may be headed for another civil war with the way things are going, only it will be males against a misandrist society.

The only civil war in US history was in large part fought for civil rights.

Now we have a situation in the USA where there will be millions of men stripped of all their rights and forced to comply with punitive laws before they even get their day in court, long after they are found guilty based on the word alone of an accuser or trapped in some sting operation of highly questionable methodology and integrity (Dateline NBC's To Catch a Predator or Operation ORE come to mind).

I love RandomMans optimism and his heartfelt desire for a better world through peaceful resistance. I hope that turns out to be the force that brings change. But the clock is certainly ticking because the people who have nothing left to lose will eventually organize and revolt because they have everything to gain.

"Letting your self fall victim to the laws like this will accomplish less then nothing to change them. It will take away another good man, and society will go on like nothing happened."

I agree entirely. One miscarriage of justice through lack of due process and fair trial, is one too many. If you allow one, you allow another to the point where millions of innocent men have been criminalised and offered a type of Soviet Justice (guilty until proven innocent) that that does not belong in a free society.

And every one of America's male citizens are at risk, even if they don't become victims in their lifetime. If the bill succeeds in New York, likewise, don't expect that it will stop there. NY will be the crusading liberal state and it will rapidly spread to the rest of the country from there. It makes perfect sense that they would go to a state with a 51.6% female population (higher than the US average of 50.7%) to initiate such a law.

The "easy does it" approach is how liberalism works, and being accepted in one of the most liberal, female populated cities gives it a legitimacy from which it can be implemented elsewhere in more conservative, sane parts. This is how no-fault divorce was brought in, and most likely Domestic Violence law and restraining orders also.

Likewise anti-male/pro-female laws emanate from the world's most liberal/feminist country, the USA first, and go from there to Europe, the East, Australia and New Zealand and to developing countries. So far only Japan has resisted America's dictatorship on "gender issues" and "equality" (i.e. male slavery laws). This is achieved through the United Nations, the prime vehicle for feminist politics worldwide, especially as Clinton allowed direct access to it to feminists in the '90s. Non co-operation causes its allies the IMF and the World Bank to withhold benefits. Everyone wants to be seen as up to the "UN standard" it's not a matter of whether there is any actual justice in what the UN calls for or not. So when I speak against America and it's discriminatory anti-male laws, the same applies to all Western countries. The laws are started in the US and upon implementation there, are exported internationally. No-fault divorce, and "no warrant arrest" through Domestic Violence law already in place in practically all of the West. All males in Western countries, and those aspiring to be Western such as India, are at extreme risk from feminist-leading Governments. The problem is not an American one but a global one.

This idea that we must allow it to get "much, much worse" before it can get better - supposedly so that "people wake up" - is idiotic. There is no historical example of such an approach working strategically. Winning, standing your ground or maintaining justice requires steely determination and incessant agitation and activism. You must let your enemies (in this case women, feminists, Marxists, the Government, politicians) know that you mean business. Passivity does not work. Passively giving up rights for anti-male legislation such as this electronic tagging one will not bring us a step forward, it will set us miles back, perhaps irrecoverably.

...that non-cooperation and non-violent, active resistance will carry the day. All we need is a little bit of Steve Biko's consciousness movement less the calls for "war", a bit of Mr. Gandhi's satyagraha after we adapt it to western society, maybe a dash of Dr. King's famous Dream, and we will prevail. If you're a religious man, recognize that all three of those movements had deep roots in religion because it is in faith that many men find the strength to carry on in such difficult endeavors. I'm not religious myself, but I respect the wisdom and faith of the men who founded those movements in religion, knowing as they did that it might be essential to success. My lack of faith in any religion does nothing to diminish my faith in the efficacy of their methods. If you find faith a source of strength, use it, but it's not essential to our success.

There are three things that are essential to our success:

1) Convincing average men to suspend paternalism as part of a greater campaign to raise men's consciousness;
2) Abstinence from hate at all times, even for those who consider us their sworn enemies and hate us for no reason other than our birth;
3) Abstinence from violence at all times, even against those who do violence to us.

If you don't believe me, read the history of any of those movements I mentioned above, and look at how the participants therein won their struggles.

One important note about satyagraha as it applies to us (Satya is Sanskrit for “truth,” and graha - from the Sanskrit root grah which can be understood as "effort" or "endeavor" ): there is a major difference between eastern and western societies that is worth noting if you ever plan to read any of Gandhi's seminal works on non-violent resistance. Western societies (and empires) are based entirely on force. That is why it is so utterly pointless to attempt to affect social change by way of force or other "direct" action against a western government - all of the guns and all of that force is concentrated in the government's hands, and we are seeking redress from that government. Despite this difference between eastern and western nations, recognize also that Gandhi's satyagrahis were in fact fighting the mightiest western empire since the Romans and they prevailed. This difference between eastern and western societies is what made satyagraha such a success against a western power.

Make no mistake. Some of us will fall prey to hate and violence at the hands of those who hate us before this struggle is won. Many of our potential brothers-in-arms are already rotting in our government's jails as what I consider "prisoners of conscience", victims of false accusations, victims of an unjust and sexist legal system or victims of simply being unable to pay the onerous debts that all men with children have the potential to be saddled with.

Hate will get us nowhere, but we will have to suffer it for the time being. Violence will get us nowhere, but we will have to suffer it as well, just as those men who are already prisoners of this struggle are suffering today.

Regardless of the circumstance, taking up arms is a futile gesture that will ultimately alienate our supporters, even among our fellow men. Most of them are still acting in a paternal fashion, so taking violent action or fomenting rebellion would simply harden the opposition against us and interfere with the raising of men's consciousness en masse. Keep in mind that up until the later part of his life, Gandhi was a strong supporter of the empire that oppressed his people, and even volunteered to form an Indian ambulance corps during both the Boer War and WWI, all in the service of the British Empire. Even during the latter days of his struggles, he never hated the British.

The only way to win this struggle is through the same approach that brought India home rule, the same approach that brought women the vote, the same approach that brought African Americans civil rights. Put any thoughts of violence, hate, civil war or armed insurrection out of your mind - those things will only harm our cause, as tempting as they may be from time to time. Talk about them, debate them, get them out of your system, but don't let such thoughts cloud your mind.

Allow me to modify a quote from Dr. King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech:

In 1963, he said, among other things:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

He said:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

Well, given that it's still 1963 for men, I have a dream too, and it goes something like this:

I have a dream that one day the sons of all men will live in a nation where they will not be judged by their sex but by the content of their character.

So now they are going to have dog collars for men? Honestly, I can't even say that I am mad at that. I think men need to be bashed; humiliated; beaten; or whatever it takes for them to wake up, stop kissing women's butt for a night in the sack or a compliment from a female(which means nothing) and start standing up for themselves.

The idiots in the MRA groups attack other men as opposed to the problems women have created as a result of being selfish. Female entitlement and vanity must be destroyed. Both vanity and chivalry keep men enslaved. It's that chivalrous nature kicking in and that same nature is keeping the average male dummy in shackles.

Women must be shown that they are just as "expendable" as they believe men to be. We are just as deserving of the so-called 'good life' as they are. That if they want us to hold doors for them then they better damn well hold them for us. That if they want to be given the rights of an equal citizen then they had better get the heck up and die early from having no benefits, fight, weep, struggle, get stressed out, lose businesses, get disrespected, sued, and basically go through the same ish that we go through day in and day out.

No freebies because you're a woman. Hell no...if I can do--and you claim YOU can do it--then DO IT don't whine about it.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/

I know I don't post much but I had to get on and tell Random Man that your post was very inspirational. We do have to work to fight the good fight. And I know it is in each and every one of us. And that is something the feminist reich is banking against. They are counting on us to destroy ourselves under their laws because they have no faith in the human nature of MEN. But I know we have the strength to endure. We are men, it's kinda what we do.

Sick Boi

A life without rights is no life at all!!

"So now they are going to have dog collars for men? Honestly, I can't even say that I am mad at that. I think men need to be bashed; humiliated; beaten; or whatever it takes for them to wake up"

I repeat what I said in my previous post:

This idea that we must allow it to get "much, much worse" before it can get better - supposedly so that "people wake up" - is idiotic. There is no historical example of such an approach working strategically.

Winning, standing your ground or maintaining justice requires steely determination and incessant agitation and activism. You must let your enemies (in this case women, feminists, Marxists, the Government, politicians) know that you mean business. Passivity does not work. Passively giving up rights for anti-male legislation such as this electronic tagging one will not bring us a step forward, it will set us miles back, perhaps irrecoverably.

Glad to see your hiatus wasn't a long one! It's been far to serious around here without you. The comic relief you provide has been sorely missed - Mr men need to stop fighting each other and start fighting women yet in your very first post back you carpet bomb the entire MRA movement and take pleasure in the suffering of your fellow man under these ridiculous existing and proposed laws.

You're a funny one, and we all need a good laugh, so definitely welcome back!

Who are you talking about, Paragon?

I love his posts. He took a break from posting here for a bit and now he's back. I hope he sticks around this time.

I didn't think you would have time to respond to my posts what with all of the klan meetings you attend and everything! Glad you took some time off from the lynching to hang out with us black folk.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/

This idea that we must allow it to get "much, much worse" before it can get better - supposedly so that "people wake up" - is idiotic. There is no historical example of such an approach working strategically.

Things are much, much worse now. The very movement you represent is the sum of things getting worse and a decision being made to fight back.

So you are claiming that the men's rights movement will not work then?

You fail to see that the "inaction of men"(i.e. letting things get worse) for nearly 30 years is what made it so necessary for the men's movement to exist. The reason men are fighting back today is because things got worse. The reason Gandhi fought back is because things got worse. The reason black slaves were freed was because they were once enslaved. Things were worse. In other words things got worse in order for people to see the wrongdoing and then things got better as a result of fighting whether physically or verbally.

In all of these cases improvements were needed--and brought about--simply because things had "got worse."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/

Thanks Sick Boi. Spread the word.

Up above in a few of the newer threads, there are several of our angrier brothers doing what they do best, although I'm pleased to see that the hate is being kept down to a dull roar in most cases.

Unfortunately, that sort of anger and hate is precisely what our opponents use to shut us down, and what they use to force average men to remain paternal and therefore compliant with the current system of misandry. Paternalism requires men to protect those who they see as weaker, or who we believe to be in danger. If MRAs are perceived as angry and hateful (as we inevitably are), it's simple for people to claim that women are in danger, and to obligate all men to behave paternally against us - because an "angry" man, or a hateful man is a "threat" to women in the eyes of most men. Paternalism is the only real weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to oppress and destroy us because of our birth, and angry, hateful MRAs simply make that weapon more powerful. Those who fail to appreciate the real power of paternalism in politics and society do so at their own peril.

That's why I ask MRAs to work through their anger and to try to come out the other side as someone who can actually make a difference in our struggle. Hate and anger are completely counter-productive precisely because we are men! Men aren't allowed to have needs in this species, and they are obligated to protect women and children, so angry, hateful rhetoric or action will get us nowhere. We can only assert the truth.

Human nature is what it is. Men are paternal, and feminists know this. Chivalry and paternalism are their best friends. By asking men to suspend paternalism temporarily, I am in fact asking men to engage in a political campaign of non-cooperation and non-violent, active resistance. That really is all there is to it. Suspend paternalism and radical feminism will fail.

The next time you feel a paternal instinct to protect a woman in a way you would NOT protect a man, ignore it. The next time you feel a paternal instinct to make a sacrifice for any woman, or to impress a woman, suppress it. The next time a woman dresses provocatively or behaves seductively in order to manipulate you, ignore it as the offensive manipulation that it is. React to it just as you would react to a man trying to manipulate you for his own personal gain. The next time a woman asks for a favor or special treatment, relying on your paternalism to provide it, ask yourself if you would provide what she is asking for (sympathy for her own mistakes, assistance with some physical task, reduced responsibility, etc.) to a man.

If you wouldn't provide it to a man, it's paternalism. If it's paternalism, you need to suppress it. Treat women as you would treat men, no better, no worse, and feminism will fail. Paternalism is what allows radical feminism to exist. If we can get a substantial proportion of men to suspend it, radical feminism dies on the vine.

When we get angry, or indulge in hate, our opponents grow stronger and our allies desert us. Anger and hate have nothing to do with truth. Paternalism is the only weapon in the feminist arsenal. Disarm them.

As I've said, the way out of our troubles is through truth, not anger, not hate, not violence. Suspending paternalism IS the non-violent, active resistance that will drive our movement to success. No other "action" is required.

..I agree with it wholeheartedly. Maybe men are not lost after all.

http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis

You fail to see that the "inaction of men"(i.e. letting things get worse) for nearly 30 years is what made it so necessary for the men's movement to exist. The reason men are fighting back today is because things got worse."

No. I still very much disagree with this idea of voluntarily giving up more ground, influence power.

Men (Marxists and such) sold out American men to feminism in the '60s. They should not have done so. Millions of American men and boys have suffered as a result, indeed, we may see that the power accumulated by females as a result will be impossible to defeat.

It seems that you think the '60s sellout and subsequent sellouts by various feminist Administrations was a good thing, and somehow necessary. What idiocy. I certainly do not agree and I think most MRAs would feel likewise.

If you knew that giving your enemy a certain degree of power would make them indefeatable, would you then subscribe to the idea that "we must continue giving up power"?

There are multiple battles in the Gender War; among them the media battle, the family battle, the education battle and now the Electronic Tagging (e.g. Dog Tags as you rightly put it) battle. With each one of them we can gain or lose our societal power and influence.

We cannot say at each of these opportunities to revolt and revel: "we'll lose this battle, yep we'll lose the next one too, ah well we'll lose the next for good measure, what harm can another do?"

Strategically it makes absolutely no sense. We are just giving our enemies (women, liberals, Marxists, feminists, etc.) more ammunition.

Man, it is sad how much hate you have for white folks. You can not even unite under a common banner with them. It must be so easy for you to talk about white people the way you do, just like it is so easy for women to talk about men like they are all aggressors. You have already
subscribed to there ideals of hate and self-segregation. You are so blinded by anger that you are willing to fight tooth and nail against people who want the same thing as you. True equality. You can call people here racist all you want. But you seem to be the only one who brings it up with hate in your heart over and over again. And if disassociation is what you are looking for I am sure you will find it everywhere you go. Because I for one choose to not fall into these rolls that placed before us designed to pit us against each other. So you can keep all your hate posts on your other site and spew you fire and play in to the victim game. And I will be here, fighting for all of us, not just a hand full. Good Game and this is my last post from me to you. Good luck.

Men's Rights NOW!!

It seems that you think the '60s sellout and subsequent sellouts by various feminist Administrations was a good thing, and somehow necessary. What idiocy. I certainly do not agree and I think most MRAs would feel likewise

Do you actually believe the gender war started with feminism? What a fool you are. Women have been using men since the beginning of time. Men went to war while women sat safe at home. Men were called bums for not working while women could be jobless at home and still seen as a productive citizen.

What has happened as a result of things getting worse is that both men and women are taking a long, hard look at gender relations and it has enabled men to see how they have been enslaved to women. Men shouldered all of the responsibility while women had choices. All the gender war has done is bring to the forefront the shabby relationships between the male and female genders. It has revealed the depth of female greed and the fault inherent in male chivalry. It has more people aware of the damage that can be done if one sex uses the other.

No, this was occuring long before women even thought to call it "feminism." The problem is male chivalry and female greed and manipulation that is what needs to be fought.

http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis

Crips 4 Life!

I'm not about the lynchin' but I'm down with the drive by on the school yard 'cause some punk stole my sneekers.

LOL!

I really did miss you MrReality.

Roflmao!

They are already aware that you are a past "offender."

It should not be too much different than the tags the pound makes you wear. I see you already know how to bark.

http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm

...play nice you two. We're all playing for the same team, remember?

Tell that to Hitler over there.

I just wanted to be the 35th post.

Victory not Vengeance!

anthony

but the Hitler thing is crossing the line.

I meant my comments as 'tongue in cheek' not as a personal or racial attack.

I try to take MrReality's comments in a similar light - thinking he's not actually a murderous hateful idiot seeking only power and privileges for himself not different from a feminist - but he just loves to throw the low blows and personal attacks (again, just like a feminist)

But, since I'm not into feminist cunt, I'm done with that little bitch.

Who's the racist again? Mr(fembitch)Reality calls me every derogatory racist thing he could think of, I make a joke about gang bangers and he calls me hitler...

Maybe MrReality needs a dictionary to look up the term racist. I don't care how black his ass is, that does not excuse the racism oozing from every sentence he types.

Deleted

I know you were playing nice, but to a black man, especially one who already thinks you're being insensitive somehow (you haven't been in my opinion, but I can only speak for myself), your joke might have sounded pretty nasty. Like I said in my comment above, look up "antilocution" and you'll see what I mean.

From our friends at Wikipedia:

Antilocution

Antilocution is a term defined by psychologist Gordon Allport in his book the Nature of Prejudice, 1954. Antilocution defines verbal remarks against a person, group or community, which are not addressed directly to the target. Generally referred to as "talking behind someone's back," the impact of this is often overlooked. However because antilocution creates an environment where discrimination is acceptable, it frequently progresses to other more damaging forms of prejudiced behavior. Its use is overshadowed by the more modern term Hate speech which has almost the same meaning.

I've been told by several people that I have an unusual ability to step into someone else's shoes and see the world as they see it, at least to some degree. So, while I "got" your joke as you intended it, and I completely understand how you would have thought it was funny as hell and that you meant it only to lighten things up with MrReality, I can also see how he might have taken offense from it.

...but I want you to consider a story, my friend.

During the partitioning of India into a Muslim and a Hindu state, Gandhi was forced to hunger strike to try and maintain peace and unity between the Muslim and Hindu populations of India, both of whom had been united in expelling the British Empire.

One day following a series of bloody and murderous riots in the city where he was staying, a Hindu man came to Gandhi to seek his blessings and his advice. Tearfully, the man confessed that he had murdered a Muslim man in the riots, and that he felt he could never atone for the misdeed. Karma is serious stuff to a devout Hindu.

Gandhi told him to adopt a Muslim child orphaned by the violence and raise him as his own. The man accepted this penance and readily agreed. However, as he turned to leave, Gandhi added that the man should raise this child as a Muslim.

Gandhi's intent, and one which comes through clearly in his writings, is that we should "love" our enemies in this manner, and that victory will come from having one's enemies realize the truth. This realization is best accomplished though that love, and that is the lesson that Gandhi was attempting to teach the Hindu man.

I'm no Gandhi, but I offer that lesson to you from my own experience.

Then and only then will you be able to approach our enemies with our truth, that men are human beings, not monsters, and that we are entitled to equitable treatment under the law and in society. Our victory will come when those who hate us accept this truth.

I know that's a tall order, loving those who hate us. But it is essential to success. As Gandhi said:

"Be the change you want to see in the world".

If you want love instead of hate, fairness instead of injustice, you must first practice love and fairness with your enemies. As a black man, I'm hoping you remember what Dr. King said about this - he offered the same advice to the African American community during the civil rights movement.

I know how difficult this is, but just as we must suspend paternalism as a method of non-violent, active resistance, we must be the change that we want to see in the world.

Hatred of feminists only makes them stronger.

I hope you're not being serious: women, as a group, are our enemies?
Certainly my enemies are only certain women and men.

"Men shouldered all of the responsibility while women had choices."

That's how it is today, but not how it was in former times. Most people of either sex didn't have many choices then, the crucial difference was (and probably still is) the one between rich and poor.
Also, since women generally couldn't study or work in most fields, they very likely didn't have more choices than men.

We should stay realistic here, since reality is bad enough.

Can't you stop using that narrow minded US-style definition of "liberal" at least when you talk about global issues? You mean leftist/feminist, not liberal.

Also, conservatism isn't any more sane than anything else from the political mainstream. I haven't seen many posts from you yet, but you seem to be one of those who think that conversatism is the answer for us. It evidently isn't, and most here seem to agree on that. It supports the "new chivalry", the paternalism RandomMan is talking about, very effectively.

...But I'm not going to 'walk on egg shells' (so to speak as I can't think of a better analogy right now) around some guy who is hypersensitive and insecure about his person.

I don't hate anyone for an arbitrary reason like race. Nor do any people I associate with and they come from about 40 different ethnic backgrounds originating from all corners of the Globe.

But when you're asking me to understand - and I do - where he's coming from in getting upset about my comments when they were in retort to his post asking me where my sheet was and saying he's glad I took a break from all the lynchings and Klan meetings, I'm merely going to repeat my earlier comment:

I don't care how black his ass is, that does not excuse or give him a free pass to throw out racist comments and personal attacks. Especially if you're going to ask me to watch what I say in retort.

I was watching what I was saying, especially since I tried to pass off his disgusting comments off as humor by keeping me as the focus of my response and not throwing a personal attack back his way.

But I'm not going to give anyone a free pass to spread hate, promote violence and murder, and racism against everyone who's not black for any reason, let alone the color of their skin.

Deleted

I actually think the statement on paternalism was head on. Men need to stop treating women like babies and perhaps *gasp* they will stop ACTING like spoiled children. Chivalry for the most part is a poison that men have been injected with since.....well since way back when. I see white guys buying these Oprah peons new SUVs and new homes. Why?

There is nothing wrong with helping someone out by holding the door for them but when they "expect me to do so because they are female"--or when they would not do the same for me because I am male--then we have a problem. Honestly, I see white--and black--feminist women using the struggle of blacks as a trump card to get what they want from the system. Some of the nastiest people I have dealt with are both black and white women; although white--and black--women seem to have extreme anger issues when it comes to men, white women are in a better position to make your life a living hell(unless of course you count Oprah's liposuctioned ass).

You know what's funny? I have NEVER had any problems with white men until I came here. For the most part the white males I hang around are extremely laid back and understanding. Nothing like white women, who seem to be closet racists just using blacks for their own empowerment. It was not until Paragon started talking that black power rally shit that I decided this motherfucker is racist. I left and came back because some good points were being made by Random, then as soon as I show up Paragon is out of the closet talking shit again.

I mean damn why not just chat with other people instead of trying to pick a fight with me? To me, this site is like a bunch of catty women backstabbing each other daily. Glenn Sacks went and did a whole article on me which was really petty. I find some MRAs championing women's causes more than they do male causes and MEN are the one who suffer the most under this system of oppression. Women are not oppressed here in America anyone that thinks so is full of shit. The western female is the most privileged group of people in all of history. Also because of the false "victim" status of black women they are able to milk the system and gain wealth by exploiting others. What I am saying is Where does this leave the black man? He's the real DOUBLE MINORITY. This is not against white men or even about them. Talking about blacks does not take away from the struggle of whites. In order for me to speak with you on the same level I have to BE on the same level as you Paragon.

Take off the "I'm against race talk" blinders for once and hear what I am saying to you. I don't hate you...I just have my own problems--as a black man--that need to be dealt with and white women(and some black ones) have a debt that they need to pay for hijacking a cause that would have given us the freedom they stole. Pay up bitches daddy is home. Feminism has been a thief in the night long enough.

I know your not going to get this but hell it is out there.

"I hope you're not being serious: women, as a group, are our enemies?
Certainly my enemies are only certain women and men."

Unfortunately about 90% of women are passive feminists I'd say. And the moderate feminists/women, the kind that say to themselves "I'll take those feminist privilages if they come easily, but otherwise I don't mind", don't have the will to stand up to the more militant feminists. So in any political sphere when it comes to laws, etc. enacted militant feminists always get their way.

The truth is, feminism allows women free assets transfer (Divorce settlements with cars, houses, savings, pensions, etc.) and tax-free income (Alimony or child support), and gives them a very high chance of becoming a millionaire from a Divorce case in their lifetime. Certainly far better odds than anyone who plays a Lottery for a million.

There are women involved in True Equality, there's Christina Hoff Summers, the Spanish Judge Maria Sanahuja who denouces Spain's VAWA law: they are very heartening and positive voices for the Men's Movement and for men's rights. However they are far outnumbered by the anti-male female journalists, academics and lawyers - a list of whom is practically endless. Many of these women and feminists find themselves in positions of authority and use their authority to advance the feminist agenda.

And in between there are far too many women who are too passive to have any effect, and who, when push comes to shove, don't want to give up their the privilages and equal outcomes that feminists have allowed.

On the whole women are either indifferent or hostile to the idea of men's rights. They engage in both revisionism and paybackism; using illusory "past injustices" or "patriarchy" or "male-dominance" to justify enslaving men and offering them lesser rights in our judicial system, and lesser social accomodation.

It's true also that a lot of men are enemies is the same sense as they just "don't want to know" or are actively hostile.

I would definitely count most women as being enemies of the men's movement. Of those given in power in the media, in Government or made Judges, etc. most of them use it to disadvantage men and advantage women.

I would definitely count most women as being enemies of the men's movement.

So would I.

That's why I keep saying that feminism is not the bigger cuplrit. It is merely an extension of the female entitlement mentality(i.e. "Me, me, me" or "I deserve such and such because I am a woman."), a preoccupation with fantasy(Most women--not all--believe in knight in shining armor tales and that some rich guy is coming to "take care of them." Why is he not there now? Well he just does not have the "courage" to admit he wants them yet. This is really how they think.) and outdated chivalry(i.e. "We must protect all women from repsonsibility!"). Feminism is a manifestation of the female entitlement mentality actualized in the form of politics.

Years of being raised to cater to women(for men)--and being catered to(for women)--has spoiled women. Now they want to be catered to by ALL MEN. That's what feminism is at its heart; slavery for men. It forces men to acquiesce to women's mythical notion of how things should be. Before the only man that "catered" to his woman was HER MAN now feminism is making it a law that "you" must cater to all women whether you are with them or not. On top of that women never felt they had to cater to men. Why should they? Women are better than men aren't they? At least that's what daddy and mommy convinced them of when he protected his(or her) little princess and then told the boy to "be a man" when he got hurt while refusing to offer him the same privileges the daughter has.

Have you ever heard a woman say that an ugly woman "looks like a man"? That is in essence male bashing. I say an ugly woman looks like an ugly woman. Women spew so-called "sexist" remarks all the time. They even have men doing it now. A good deal of women think a man should be "thankful" that he has a woman. Men still have not realized this though, they still see women as sweet innocent things wearing dresses skipping down cherry lane.

http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm

The idea of women not being allowed to work and suddenly gaining liberation is a crock of horseshit propagated by tireless crusading women and men that have fallen for feminist ideology and revisionist history. Even today many women are "opting" not to work. A feminist article from the NY Times reveals this. It is called "The Opt-Out Revolution":

'The Opt-Out Revolution'
The feminist revolution that swept across America in the 1970s promoted the dream of a land in which at least half of corporate officers, Fortune 500 C.E.Os, partners in law firms, and doctors would be women. The feminist movement was always elitist; it was about getting political and corporate power for educated women.

But a funny thing happened on the way to achieving that promise. Feminism was mugged by the reality that most women don't seek those goals. How the best and the brightest are rejecting the career track laid out for them by the feminists was detailed in a lengthy article entitled "The Opt-Out Revolution" by Lisa Belkin in the persistently feminist New York Times Magazine. That's the same publication that a few years ago featured a cover glamorizing the feminists' number-one role model as Saint Hillary Clinton in radiant white robes.

Ms. Belkin interviewed hundreds of women. She described a group in Atlanta, all of whom had graduated from Princeton more or less 20 years ago, earned advanced degrees in law or business from other prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Columbia, and waited until their thirties to marry and have children because their careers were so exciting.

These women are typical of what is happening in America today. For the last couple of decades, roughly half of M.B.A.s, J.D.s, and M.D.s have been granted to women. In the feminist game plan, these are the very women who should now be at the top of the business and professional world, wielding the fantasy power attributed to the tiny percentage at the top. As one of them told Ms. Belkin, what she wanted when she graduated was to be "a confirmed single person, childless, a world traveler.

Feminist ideology for years has preached that if women fail to cross those thresholds of power, it is because women are held down by a "glass ceiling" imposed by a discriminatory and oppressive male-dominated society. But these smart, talented, successful women told Ms. Belkin that they opted out of their accelerating careers voluntarily. As their work days kept getting longer and longer, the women walked away from six-figure incomes.

One predictable explanation for this attitude is, in one Belkin quote, that many women never get near the glass ceiling because "they are stopped long before by the maternal wall."

But these Princeton women didn't admit they abandoned the workforce because their children needed them. They said they opted out because "life got in the way." They were "no longer willing to work as hard, commuting, navigating office politics," and "balancing all that with the needs of a family." Typical comments were: "I don't want to be on the fast track leading to a partnership at a prestigious law firm." "I don't want to conquer the world; I don't want that kind of life."

Phyllis Schlafly: " "Feminism raised a lot of false expectations that women can have it all," Schlafly said. "Feminism is telling women there isn't any biological clock."

Schlafly did point out that she is an accomplished woman, earning a law degree and serving as a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution from 1985-1991, appointed by the late President Ronald Reagan.

However, Schlafly said she waited until her six children were grown to start her career, adding other women with children should consider making the same choice.

"Feminists look at role, R-O-L-E, as a dirty, forbidden word," she said.

Schlafly also asserted that feminists focus on painting themselves as victims in a patriarchal society, yet women have been treated well throughout the 20th century, even before the feminist movement began."

This woman was hosting a rally with professional working mothers--who held degrees--long before feminism was even thought of. The reason many women are entering the workforce now is because due to the advances in technology they now have easier jobs as opposed to the limited amount of dangerous jobs that were available then. Women never wanted to do HARD work. Remember the women involved with feminism at its start were pampered trust fund bunnies as Erin Pizzey calls them. It is also because feminism is telling women that their way to "liberation" is through their job rather than being a better person. So they kill themselves at jobs trying to beat men instead of trying to become a better person and work WITH MEN.

So no feminism did nothing but bring feminine greed frontstage. The real thing that gave women the increased status(over men)--as always--was technology, other women, and most of all the hard labor of men.

Even NOW when these harpies are making MORE than men they are still stealing from males in the name of "equality."

Honestly I don't even think you're a man I think you are a feminist woman incognito.

http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/

...I'm really not getting through to you, am I?

You can go right ahead and hate women and feminists and anyone else your heart desires.

But you're setting us back and assisting our opponents every time you do.

Or you too can read about every single successful civil, political or human rights campaign in history, and look for the common elements.

Guess what they are?

1) Minimal or absent hate
2) Minimal or absent violence
3) Active, non-violent resistance
4) Love of (or at least compassionate understanding of) one's enemies

Christ did it (more than 2 billion followers today who consider themselves better for his efforts). Gandhi did it (more than 1 billion free Indians and Pakistanis today). King did it (35-45 million minority men and women with real civil and human rights). Biko did it (38 million South African black people freed from the chains of apartheid at last count).

That's more than 3 BILLION people who have achieved meaningful humanitarian, social and political change with this approach.

Do you want to help make it 6 billion? Or would you rather indulge yourself in hate and keep that number at 3 billion?

All you have to do is stop hating, and start suppressing your paternalism. Believe it or not, your paternalism is what MAKES you hate, far more than you might if you weren't paternal. When you overcome paternalism, you will overcome hate and vice-versa. Believe it or not, n.j. (who was the target of a rather heated exchange over some of my words earlier this year, and who you are presently attacking too) was one of the people who helped me to accomplish this.

If you're interested, I'll explain this in more detail, but I've hogged more than enough bandwidth around here already this week.

By the way, given your sensitivity to racial issues, what did ALL of the men who have used this approach in the last 100 years to free more than a billion people from oppression have in common, other than the fact that they succeeded?

Hint: NONE of them are white.

Deleted